So Leah from New Zealand didn't like my first response to the philosophical complaint she made on my Contact Me form. I even offered her a free book and she turned me down! I'll just add her to the ever-growing list of women who have rejected me.
I'm constantly amazed and, frankly, puzzled at the oh-so-common Christian position that the Old Testament is somehow rendered irrelevant or inaccurate if not read through the "lens" of the New Testament.
I'll let Leah elaborate:
"What a strange reply...it's not about ignoring the OT, it's about using it IN CONTEXT WITH THE NEW! Which - as you stated in your reply - you have not done. So thanks but no thanks for the offer of your book. I'm not into reading biased one-sided, pie eyed things that skew the Bible to make their own point. Cheers!"
So let's talk about context. The New Testament relies on the Old as a foundation. On this, we agree. But how does the Old Testament rely on the New for its context? Are we really suggesting that when Moses wrote the OT, he (and Yahweh, presumably) knew that no-one would be able to read and understand it until 1,300 years later when the NT was started?
If Christianity really didn't need the OT, then it wouldn't still form part of the Bible. Yet people seem to read the first half of Genesis, then skip straight to the Gospels, as if the Pentateuch, prophets and psalms are optional reading. Why anyone would claim a particular religion and then refuse to read the owner's manual is beyond my meager mind to comprehend.
Perhaps, just perhaps, Leah, if you read the foundation of your faith, then you'll be more informed. That's the only purpose of my book. But, like too many Christians, you would rather form an instant opinion about a book that you've not read - even when it's been offered to you for free!!